Gingrich Going Down

He’s melting. The avalanche has started. Newt Gingrich is setting himself on fire. The list is long and will grow in the coming days.

Remember Newt’s indignant put down of John King for having the audacity to ask about his 2nd ex-wife’s charge that Newt wanted an open marriage. Well, King ain’t letting him get away with his false claim that his campaign offered up bunches of people to rebut poor Marianne:

Gingrich wrong? Gee, how could that be.

Then there is Newt’s crazy effort to dress himself up as a “Reagan Conservative.” Gingrich, channeling his inner Al Gore, takes credit for helping Ronald Reagan bring down the Soviet Union. Seriously, Newt? The Soviets tanked in 1990. You didn’t become Speaker until 1994. But, as I will show below, Newt trashed Reagan for the very policies that helped bring the Soviets down. Here’s a dandy clip of Newt advising George H.W. Bush to steer clear of being a Reagan Republican:

But this was not a one off comment. Newt repeatedly trashed Reagan. It pains me to quote Elliot Abrams, but the facts are the facts:

But the most bitter battleground was often in Congress. Here at home, we faced vicious criticism from leading Democrats — Ted Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, Jim Wright, Tip O’Neill, and many more — who used every trick in the book to stop Reagan by denying authorities and funds to these efforts. On whom did we rely up on Capitol Hill? There were many stalwarts: Henry Hyde, elected in 1974; Dick Cheney, elected in 1978, the same year as Gingrich; Dan Burton and Connie Mack, elected in 1982; and Tom DeLay, elected in 1984, were among the leaders.

But not Newt Gingrich. He voted with the caucus, but his words should be remembered, for at the height of the bitter struggle with the Democratic leadership Gingrich chose to attack . . . Reagan.

The best examples come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986. This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.” But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were “pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan “contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.” Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”

Newt also has tried to resurrect the ghost of Barry Goldwater and portray himself as a dyed in the wool Goldwater Republican. Except that is not true:

On this point Newt is right. An old friend of mine, who managed the delegate hunt for Rockefeller, told me that Gingrich in his position of working the South for Rockefeller was given a bag of cash and went out to buy votes in black churches.

Last but not least, there is Ann Coulter. Ann and I don’t agree on much, but her take down of Newt tracks much of what I have written previously:

To talk with Gingrich supporters is to enter a world where words have no meaning. They denounce Mitt Romney as a candidate being pushed on them by “the Establishment” — with “the Establishment” defined as anyone who supports Romney or doesn’t support Newt.

Gingrich may have spent his entire life in Washington and be so much of an insider that, as Jon Stewart says, “when Washington gets its prostate checked, it tickles [Newt],” but he is deemed the rebellious outsider challenging “the Establishment” — because, again, “the Establishment” is anyone who opposes Newt.

This is the sort of circular reasoning one normally associates with Democrats, people whom small-town pharmacists refer to as “drug seekers” and Ron Paul supporters.

Newtons claim Romney is a “moderate,” and Gingrich the true conservative — a feat that can be accomplished only by refusing to believe anything Romney says … and also refusing to believe anything Gingrich says.

Newt is bad news for the Republicans and worse news for America. He is grandiose and audacious. Neither are good traits or something we should expect a President to exhibit. Romney may not be the perfect candidate, but he is a decent, honest person. He made is money outside of Washington. Newt? He parlayed his position as Speaker into the millionaire club. Enough of Newt.

Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.

Newt’s going to take Florida and then kick some serious Romney ass on Super Tuesday.

Scottymac54

For the sake of the country, I certainly hope not.

Wbboe

Limbaugh, Mike Reagan Blast
Romney for Smears on Gingrich

Ronald Reagan’s eldest son Mike Reagan has issued a statement lambasting Mitt
Romney and his supporters for claims that Romney’s Republican presidential rival
Newt Gingrich was a strong critic of President Reagan.

Mike Reagan says such claims are false.

Even Rush Limbaugh, shocked by the Romney claims, chimed on his Thursday
radio broadcast to say, “This is obviously a coordinated attack to take Newt out
here in Florida.”

Rush slammed the Romney-backed smear campaign against Newt.

“That kind of stuff is why people hate Romney so much,” Limbaugh
said.

Limbaugh added that Newt has always been a conservative from his early days
in national talk radio in the 1980s.

On Thursday, Mike Reagan, a respected conservative commentator, responded to
the Gingrich critics with this statement to Newsmax:

“I am deeply disturbed that supporters of Mitt Romney are claiming that Newt
Gingrich is not a true Reaganite and are even claiming that Newt was a strong
critic of my father.

“Recently I endorsed Newt Gingrich for president because I believe that Newt
is the only Republican candidate who has both consistently backed the
conservative policies that my father championed and the only Republican that
will continue to implement his vision.

“It surprises me that Mitt Romney and his supporters would raise this
issue — when Mitt by his own admission voted for Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale
who opposed my father, and later supported liberal Democrat Paul
Tsongas for president.

“As governor of Massachusetts, Romney’s achievement was the most
socialistic healthcare plan in the nation up until that time.

“Say what you want about Newt Gingrich but when he was speaker of the House
he surrounded himself with Reagan conservatives and implemented a Ronald Reagan
program of low taxes and restrained federal spending.

“Newt’s conservative program created a huge economic boom and balanced the
budget for the first time in more than a generation.”

Mike Reagan concluded: “I would take Newt Gingrich’s record any day over Mitt
Romney’s.”

And Nancy Reagan, Reagan’s wife, has stressed Gingrich’s close relationship
with her late husband.

In a 1995 speech at a dinner honoring Ronald Reagan, Nancy said: “The
dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes
back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn
Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to
keep that dream alive.”

Michael Reagan said:” “It surprises me that Mitt Romney and his supporters would raise this issue — when Mitt by his own admission voted for Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale who opposed my father, and later supported liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas for president.“

Romney can’t run on a positive record because he doesn’t have one. This is truly why people hate Romney. What a despicable man. Smears, lies and a new low of editing youtube videos to give a false impression of Gingrich bashing the former president, when what he goes on to express is how to carry the Reagan Revolution forward.

Video supposedly showing Newt Gingrich bashing Reaganism just at the end of Ronald Reagan’s presidency was edited to put the then-up-an-coming congressman in a bad light, it has turned out.

Betty

Might know – any one who, rightly or wrongly, offers the people a chance to control an outcome must be distroyed.

Anonymous

“Finally, a presidential candidate came out and honestly addressed the
biggest problem in our economy, the enormous debt overhang in our
mortgage market. A few days ago, Mitt Romney was at a forum in Florida
talking about foreclosures, and his comments were actually refreshingly
honest about our housing and banking situation and the need for a debt write-down. ”

So don’t be concerned about who you quote, Larry. It’s the truth that counts, no matter who says it.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002509315863 Kata Kimbe

This article is by somebody who dogged Clinton for years before Monica and his lying under oath.
William Jefferson Gingrich By R. EMMETT TYRRELL, Jr

How long have I been saying it? At least for 15 years, but in private I have been aware of it longer. Newt Gingrich is conservatism’s Bill Clinton, but without the charm. He has acquired wit but he has all the charm of barbed wire.
Newt and Bill are 1960s generation narcissists, and they share the same problems: waywardness and deviancy. Newt, like Bill, has a proclivity for girl hopping. It is not as egregious as Bill’s, but then Newt is not as drop-dead beautiful. His public record is already besmeared with tawdry divorces, and there are private encounters with the fair sex that doubtless will come out.
If I have heard of some, you can be sure the Democrats have heard of more. Nancy Pelosi’s intimations are timely. Newt up against the Prophet Obama would be a painful thing to watch. He might be deft with one-liners but it would be futile. There are independent and other uncommitted voters to be cultivated in 2012 — all would be unmoved by Newt’s juggling of conservative shibboleths.
Newt and Bill, as 1960s generation self-promoters, share the same duplicity, ostentatious braininess, a propensity for endless scrapes with propriety and the law. They are tireless hustlers. Now Newt is hustling my fellow conservatives in this election. The last time around he successfully hustled conservatives in the House of Representatives and then the conservatives on the House impeachment committee.
He blew the impeachment and in fact his role as Speaker. He backed out in disgrace. He now says Republicans in the House were exhausted with his great projects. Nonsense, I knew many of them, and they were exhausted with his atrocious leadership. He is not a leader. He is a huckster. Today Mitt Romney has 72 Congressional endorsements. Newt has 11. Possibly the 11 have yet to meet him.
Now he has found his key for hustling conservative electorate. He is playing the liberal media card and saying he embodies conservative values. Like Bill with his credulous fans, Newt is hoping conservatives suffer amnesia. Possibly some do. Perhaps they cannot recall mere months ago when this insufferable whiz kid was lambasting the great Congressman Paul Ryan for “right-wing social engineering” — more evidence of Newt’s not-so-hidden longing for the approval of the liberal media.
After his Ryan moment Newt’s campaign was a death wagon, and it will be so again — hopefully before he gets the nomination. Conservatives should not climb onto his death wagon. He is a huckster, and I for one will not be rendered a contortionist trying to defend him. I did so in his earliest days and learned my lesson.
After Newt’s and Bill’s disastrous experiences in government both went on to create empires, Bill in philanthropy and cheap thought, Newt in public policy and cheap thought. As an ex-president Bill has wrung up an unprecedented $75.6 million since absconding from the White House with White House loot and shameless pardons. I do not know how much Newt has amassed, but he got between $1.6 million to $1.8 million from Freddie Mac, and he lobbied for Medicare Part B while receiving, according to the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney, “Big Bucks Pushing Corporate Welfare.” Now after a lifetime in Washington he is promoting himself as an outsider.
Contending with Newt for the Republican nomination are Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney. All three are truer conservatives than Newt. I like them all. But John Bolton, former ambassador the United Nations, and John Lehman, President Reagan’s secretary of the navy, are for Mitt, and they are solid conservatives. Governor Christie and the economic pundit Larry Kudlow laud Mitt on taxes, on spending, and on attacking crony capitalism. Mr. Kudlow calls Mr. Romney “Reaganesque.” Ann Coulter seems to loathe Newt. That is good enough for me.
Back in 1992 I appeared with Chris Matthews on some gasbag’s television show. Was it Donohue? At any rate, I said candidate Clinton had more skeletons in his closet than a body snatcher. It was a prescient line then, and I always got a laugh. I can apply the same line today to Newt, though he has skeletons both inside and outside his closet.
Conservatives should not be surprised by the scandals that lie ahead, if they stick with him. Those of us, who raised the question of character in 1992, were confronted by an indignant Bill Clinton, treating the topic as a low blow. To listen to him, character was the “c” word of American politics. It was reprehensible to mention it. By now we know. Character matters. Paul, Santorum, and Romney have it. Newt has Clinton’s character.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002509315863 Kata Kimbe

I wish I could change my name to Kata “The Establishment” Kimbe… since I don’t agree with Newtster.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002509315863 Kata Kimbe

I simply can’t get the conservatives who are so GungHo for Gingrich unless it is the fact that he is bombastic and attacks the media head on. He has so many different stories and it seems more and more that a liar is always a liar. The claims about witnesses having been offered to ABC for a rebuttal in the mess about the 2nd wife has been retracted. The claim that he was/is a Reagan conservative when there is plenty of video where he says otherwise when it suits him is opportunism to the fullest. There is video of him pandering to Univision last night ridiculing Romney about the self deportation by playing class warfare from the left … when he himself used the same logic just a few months ago. http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/01/did-newt-gingrich-used-to-favor-self-deportation.html This guy is going to sink the ship if nominated. Maybe we once and for all will see what happens when a disliked ‘conseravtive’ runs against a popular but flawed President. The Republicans will get what they deserve.

“A newly surfaced video shows that no less a figure than Nancy Reagan asserted that President Ronald Reagan passed the “torch” of Reagan conservatism to Newt Gingrich — belying efforts by Mitt Romney supporters to cast Gingrich as anti-Reagan.”
Nancy Reagan stressed Gingrich’s close relationship with Reagan in the video of her 1995 speech at a dinner honoring Ronald Reagan: “The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.”
by Jim Meyers entire article @ “NewsMax”

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002509315863 Kata Kimbe

Did you watch the video above where Newt himself bashed Reaganism? Newsmax are so in the tank for Newt and pushing him and I have no clue why… but every newsletter and email I get is about how to get Newt nominated. They have lost all sense of reality and perspective. If it is not about Newt being the true conservative it is a bad alarmist story on Mitt… From this mornings Inbox: Breaking from Newsmax.com
Murdoch: Romney’s Tax Returns May ‘Kill’ Him.

hg

I can’t get videos to run on my computer. Wish I could. I read the heading Murdoch put out but not the article itself. So who are we supposed to vote for? I haven’t liked Gingrich since the Clinton scandel and Gingrich was so hypocritical and guilty of the same thing , basically. Actually I don’t really like any of the choices offerred. But one thing is certain, I will never vote for another democrat. I stuck with them for 50 years. No more.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002509315863 Kata Kimbe

Another Mitt bashing email from Newsmax this morning:

Dear Patriotic Taxpayer,
Despite raking in $21.7 million, Romney paid a lower tax rate than most Americans by exploiting certain obscure tax loopholes.
And he isn’t alone!
In fact, 47% of those earning $250,000 (or more) paid zero taxes during one recent year.
Watch This Video to See Their Tax Secrets.
Aaron DeHoogFinancial PublisherNewsmax and Moneynews

Anonymous

John King … Dana Bash …. Jeremy Bash…..

King has some balls playing this game …. Newt is someone whose ego is writing checks his body can’t cash and would make a terrible President. But John King? King is the post boy for Hypocrisy!

Lupe

I did a search through 61 comments and found not a word about Nancy Pelosi’s remarks re Newt Gingrich and the “something” she “knows”. If anyone looked at the video, they would have certainly noticed her barely suppressed snarl of contempt when she began her comments about Gingrich. There has got to be a good story there despite her subsequent backtracking.

I think one of the biggest failings of Pelosi and the entire US government, for that matter, is all their secrets. I want to know what’s has been going on! How can we make informed decisions if everything is a big secret, confidential, or classified? “They” seem to think they need to know everything there is to know about all of us.

Jrterrier

maybe pelosi had an affair with newt! it’s hard to take her seriously when she doesn’t disclose what she has but just plays a hide and seek game

hg

I watched as Pelosi was talking about that on CNN. Man! She was so mad she was shaking. Whats with her and Newt? Maybe her botox is getting to her :).

Anonymous

She had previously threatened to release information gathered during the investigations of Newt when he was Speaker. She had to backpedal when it was pointed out to her that it would be against House rules to do so and she could be removed from her seat for doing so. She could release the information, but only if she wants to lose her job and the perks that go with it. No way is Nancy going to put the good of the country over her own interests.

http://www.theindependentview.com Matthew J. Weaver

My biggest problem with the state of things in the primary is the repeated storyline that Romney will lose despite polling and commonsense that says otherwise. Do the anti-Romney crowd really think that repeating this over and over again will make it so? No, it won’t; instead it makes the purveyors look like fanatical trolls that drank Kool-Aid and no longer have any connection with reality.

http://twitter.com/Juliezzz Juliezzz

repeating it wont necessarily make it so, however, if there are whole sections of your party that vow to never vote for the man, if the man has very lackluster support for a base and if the man gets no cross over votes from dems or droves of independents….then Yeah I think he is going to have a rough time upsetting an incumbent.

It’s not impossible….it’s just becomes a nail biter of an election.

Scottymac54

I’m just thankful, that there is at least one candidate that I could choose, and still feel confident about it.

The way these “front-runners” are responding to attacks from each other just confirms to me how weak either of them would be against the Chicago boys.

Scottymac54

Remember when I pointed out that Cain’s hardcore supporters were recycling the Obama supporters’ tactics from 2012?

That’s where the zombie-like programming and repetitive talking points came from. I’ve noticed that most of the Gingrich supporters either express unresolved resentment over Cain’s implosion, or readily admit having supported Cain.

I’ve noticed the Gingrich/Cain supporters share two characteristics. They tend to be way less educated and articulate than those supporting Romney, and they tend to have more “control” issues, meaning, they are unwilling to accept their candidates as they are….they must build up Gingrich in their own minds, and deny the existence of his flaws as a human being, so they can put him up on a pedestal, and worship him.

They want to see their candidate as superhuman, just as Barky’s worshippers did.

In general, Romney’s supporters seem a bit more grounded in reality, in terms of what they expect from him. They also seem more willing to hear their candidate criticized, without snapping instinctively, and defensively.

Anonymous

No they think that if they repeat their bs enough they can make it come true. And all too often this tactic works. That’s what happens when people don’t bother to educate themselves on the issues but preen themselves on a “talking point” education.

Wbboe

CNN–yea, there’re credible alright:

Access journalism refers to the compromises journalists must make in order to have access to sources and places that would be denied them, were they to offend those who control access. When Eason Jordan admitted in 2003 at the invasion of Iraq, that CNN had systematically avoided reporting negative things about Sadam for the previous 12 years, in order to be allowed to stay in Iraq, he essentially revealed how deeply CNN had compromised journalistic values for the sake of being able to continue reporting from a given place. The history of Stalinism as reported in the Western press is a classic product of access journalism, closely controlled by Soviet officials.

Wbboe

This support for Romney is bot-like. Do you have ANY IDEA what this guy is all about? Well, stay tuned. I will not spoil the surprise. The Obama campaign will tell you ALL ABOUT HIM. That will turn offf the indies. And the conservatives? His entire campaign is about marginalizing them. You wait and see. They will not support him. The whole strategy here is for the elites to maintain control. The key player in this is old man Bush. You need better political G-2 not to get sucked in.

http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

Wbboe,
We do know what he is about. He is not a blind ideologue. He is pragmatic and will make compromises in order to govern. But he also has bedrock principles that he won’t violate. I worry about his foreign policy, but as far as integrity and competence are concerned he is very sound. Gingrich? I’ve only watched his nonsense for 30 plus years. He too has a record and it ain’t pretty.

And, if George HW Bush is pulling the strings, great. He is a good, decent man who served his country well.

Ellend818

And, if George HW Bush is pulling the strings, great. He is a good, decent man who served his country well.
Agreed.

http://twitter.com/Juliezzz Juliezzz

too bad the constitution isn’t included in that “bedrock of principles that he won’t violate” . Because apparently he loves the idea of imprisoning Americans without a trial so long as some unanswerable person accuses said American of vague link to terrorism.

just what is this “bedrock of principles that he won’t violate”? And how are they be valuable in a President? If you don’t have the principle of defending civil liberties and the constitution, then you better have something saint like to back it up. Otherwise don’t claim to be principled

Guest

Mitt loses me when he pledges massive increases in the military. Is this based on data to which much of the rest of the county isn’t privy ?

1. If defense spending shouldn’t be cut, where will Romney find savings to bring the budget closer to balance?

2. If defense spending should be increased, how will Romney pay for it?

Anonymous

Suffolk poll: Romney stronger in FL than Gingrich against Obama by 14 points

That right there is the difference between winning the the WH, and losing.

Third, you must study the response by the
elites. It is much like the scene in the
movie Titanic. After the ship strikes
the iceberg, the wealthy passengers man their own gold plated lifeboats. Everyone else is left to the cold, dark, icy
water.

The
political class is living large these days.
In most parts of the country, real estate values are at rock bottom, but
they are surging in the Washington DC area.
They do not want their world to change under any circumstances.

That is
why they picked Obama and promote him the way they do. They own him, he can bamboozle the masses and
he is their golden handshake. At the
same time, they can use him to strip wealth from the middle class and make the
working class dependent on government hand-outs. That in a nutshell is their survival
strategy.

The elites know that Mr. Obama
displays a cosmic vision, lives in a fantasy world and engages in magic
thinking—cultish. It does not bother them.
But it did bother French President who had to remind Obama that we live
in a real world not a virtual one. Also, Obama is more interested in public
relations than policy, theater than reality. (See Dr. Sam Vaknin; see also Dr.
Charles Krauthammer; the apology tour).

They
favor Romney over Gingrich for the same reason as they favor Obama. Romney is one of them and he will not rock
their boat. Therefore, he is a safe alternative
if the great unwashed mutiny and toss Corpse-man Obama overboard in 2012.

Gingrich
on the other hand will rock their boat if necessary, to get the country on the
right track. Therefore, the elites are
using the media they own to force Gingrich out of the race. The decision by ABC to release an interview
of his ex-wife 3 days before the South Carolina primary is the latest example
of the perversity they call vetting.

For
them, vetting is strictly a one way street. For as former USA Today White House
Correspondent Richard Benedetto noted recently, the elite media never ask Obama
the tough questions they ask Republicans.
Instead, they “let Obama skate above the fray and look presidential
while his potential successors appear to be futilely flailing. It is by White
House design, aided by a press corps that seems content with being shut out by
the president and being spoon-fed the message of the day, rather than clamoring
for more chances to ask him questions during this critical time.”

The
precedent for this was the assault on Hillary Clinton. Like Gingrich, her goal was to save the middle
class; therefore they used the elite media to eliminate her. They launched
shrill attacks against her, claimed she wanting Obama assassinated and
threatened a new round of sexual innuendo against Bill to force her out of the
race.

On the
eve of the primary, CNN hired marketing experts to come up with words like
polarizing and divisive, etc., salted their panels with Obama loving pundits
who repeated those words with regularity, took unflattering pictures, reduced
coverage, rigged debates, etc—I campaigned for Hillary in 4 states. I know whereof I speak.

The last thing in the world the elites and the
political class want is to give you or me a voice in the debate—or any say in
our collective future. As Professor
Sheldon Wollin has observed the goal of the elites is to turn elections into
public relations events which give the appearance of democracy, but the choice
is between personalities– not policies.
And our elite media are the Barnum and Bailey of this fatuous circus

Wbboe

Romney will lose to Obama. Period. And when that happens just remember you heard it here first. And don’t come crying to me.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002509315863 Kata Kimbe

I never come crying.

Wbboe

good. then I wont have to listen to it. You can lead a horse to water but you cant make them drink.

Tequila81618

Gingrich is in the lead.. ck out today’s Gallup a legitimate polling establishment!

It’s so easy to just accept that everyone owns their vote, and let them come to their conclusions on their own, without belittiling them in the interim.

Just saying.

Tequila81618

Yep!

OBAMA works for the 1%

ROMNEY IS the 1%

PA

“The GOP establishment’s problem is obvious: nobody really likes Mitt Romney, not independents, not Democrats, and not Republicans. To win, they need to divide and conquer Mitt Romney’s opposition, but they didn’t expect things to coalesce this quickly around Newt Gingrich. The good news for them is that Newt Gingrich is probably the easiest target in the world, but their inability so far to take advantage of that fact speaks volumes about Romney’s weakness.”

Romney’s only argument against Obama is weakening.

From a Laura Ingraham interview:

“INGRAHAM: You’ve also noted that there are signs of improvement on the horizon in the economy. How do you answer the president’s argument that the economy is getting better in a general election campaign if you yourself are saying it’s getting better?ROMNEY: Well, of course it’s getting better. The economy always gets better after a recession, there is always a recovery. […]INGRAHAM: Isn’t it a hard argument to make if you’re saying, like, OK, he inherited this recession, he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, and now, we’re seeing more jobs, but vote against him anyway? Isn’t that a hard argument to make? Is that a stark enough contrast?ROMNEY: Have you got a better one, Laura? It just happens to be the truth.”

Anonymous

I learn the neatest stuff here.thanks Larry.

http://twitter.com/Juliezzz Juliezzz

Romney Flip Flopped on Regan too….. along with many many many other things

Obama can not play the flip flop card. Sometimes changing positions can be good because it is evolving. I flipped from being a Dem and now I am flopping around like nothing else. 😉

http://twitter.com/Juliezzz Juliezzz

Serial flip flopping is another matter tho

Rex

This is gettng really old listening to them beat each other up. It’s getting so petty and disturbing. The focus should be on what they will do when they get into office, not who slept with who or how much money they have – we need to keep our eye on the ultimate goal – getting rid of the “O”.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002509315863 Kata Kimbe

More than anything… the supporters bashing each other is like Clinton / Obama all over again.

http://twitter.com/Juliezzz Juliezzz

Romney is an insider too. Yeah I know he isn’t a Washington man Nevertheless, Romney has George Bush Senior supporting him and Bob Dole and John McCain. Hell, Romney Sr. and Daddy Bush were best buds! So clearly he is the “Insiders Candidate”, why do you think they want him? Is it because he plans to revolutionize the GOP bringing freedom back to the American People and ending corruption? Ha! Not bloody likely! Or is it that he promises to continue the same criminal policies that are fleecing America of it’s wealth and prosperity? I mean of course they want Romney because he will do what he’s told. There is an underlying agenda that has nothing to do with attending to the American public’s needs and is only about furthering the needs of their globalist buddies.

I think at least the 1/2 to 3/4’s of the Republican voters sense this even if they don’t fully understand it. People say, “I don’t like him” or “I don’t trust him” but can only superficially explain why. But the media pushes him forward relentlessly and the public are grudgingly falling in behind little by little while holding their nose.

This recipe may get Romney the nomination. But this is also a recipe for losng the general election. Apathy for a candidate is never a pathway to the Presidency. Just ask McCain, Kerry, Gore, Dole, etc.

And even if we do get him….what exactly is going to get better? Trading one bought and paid for politician for another is hardly going to bring us back from the brink.

http://thesibylspeaks.wordpress.com/ Anthony

” Apathy for a candidate is never a pathway to the Presidency. Just ask McCain, Kerry, Gore, Dole, etc.

And even if we do get him….what exactly is going to get better? Trading one bought and paid for politician for another is hardly going to bring us back from the brink.”

Well, I think we can all see just how great we’ve done with “Mr. Charisma” in the Oval Office. The POTUS is never going to come over for a drink, so I’m not really interested in how affable any candidate is.

I do understand what you’re saying about Romney’s ‘insider’ appeal, but I do think his ability to look at a balance sheet and know what has to be cut and what has to be funded is to his advantage.

I would happily vote for him. Not enthusiastically, but certainly happily

http://twitter.com/Juliezzz Juliezzz

If I thought that Romney had any intentions of looking at a balance sheet and having the guts to make some real cuts in order to actually balance the budget, well then he would be worthy of a second look. But he isn’t running on a promise to balance the budget which leads me to think he’s not interested in it.

This is a quote from U.S.News & World Report

“Romney hasn’t established a
debt-reduction target, with his proposals for reining in the debt
limited mostly to spending cuts. The Tax Policy Center, however, found
that Romney’s proposed tax cuts would increase the national debt by
about $600 billion per year, which theoretically would require even
deeper offsetting spending cuts to be debt-neutral.”

this doesn’t even address the increase in spending Romney wants for the military industrial complex. However, it’s important to note that Romney isn’t proposing any major spending cuts. I’m all for tax reduction but I’m also big on SPENDING reduction.

If the big selling point for Romney is his fiscal understanding and ability to reign in our financial problems, why isn’t he running on real solutions to our financial crisis?

He’s not giving us a clear plan…. what is his plan?

Anthony

Basing my opinion purely on his performance as a businessman. I don’t think any of the GOP hopefuls would float their economic plan at this point – the Chicago machine would have too much time to vilify it.

Once someone starts campaigning, I just stop listening to them and research their past performance instead. I did that with Obama, and so many of my friends are now coming to me and saying that they wished they looked up his record as a Community Organizer before voting for him. I don’t even say “I told you so”. I just smile and nod….

http://twitter.com/Juliezzz Juliezzz

yeah Obama was a clear dud and people didn’t listen for the most part. But, I see a lot of serious problems with the records of Gingrich and Romney and even Santorum. Only Pauls rerecord is 100% on backing the constitution and no flip flops for political expediency.

Scottymac54

Why accept substitutes?

None of the other candidates offers anything but the same old lies.

http://twitter.com/Juliezzz Juliezzz

yeah and in the debate they all kept saying “I agree with Paul.” and “Paul is right about that.” so…yeah why not go with the guy who is continually right.

Scottymac54

I guess, if the main focus is beating Obama just for the sake of beating him, or if you believe the economy is the most pressing issue, it’s easier to choose Tide or Wisk and make the best of a bad lot.

I think both Obama and the economy are symptoms, rather than the causes, of our woes, so I just see a unique opportunity to choose a different path, that I think would guide us back to a very original track.

I just don’t think candidates like Dr. Paul come along very often, in terms of integrity and consistency.

Scottymac54

I guess, if the main focus is beating Obama just for the sake of beating him, or if you believe the economy is the most pressing issue, it’s easier to choose Tide or Wisk and make the best of a bad lot.

I think both Obama and the economy are symptoms, rather than the causes, of our woes, so I just see a unique opportunity to choose a different path, that I think would guide us back to a very original track.

I just don’t think candidates like Dr. Paul come along very often, in terms of integrity and consistency.

Steve

If you deviate from the principle of the Federal Constitution and the Principle of the God of Liberty, that will be the bottom line- going down… down to the abyss.. to Hell, period!

Romney endorsed by 72 of the most corrupt Congress people in the history of the US?

Well, those endorsements sure say a mouthful… don’t they!

http://twitter.com/Juliezzz Juliezzz

This is a big reason you don’t want liar’s and cheats as your nominee.

Besides the fact you have to count on them not imploding before they get to election day, but more importantly there’s the fact that they’ll never do what they promise once they get into office and you can bet their loyalties don’t reside with “we the people”

Ptab01

Ain’t this the process though? Ain’t this why we have primaries and seek to vett candidates ?

The best examples
come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986.
This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the
Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985,
though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich:
“Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s
challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without
a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President
Reagan is clearly failing.” Why? This was due partly to “his
administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately
fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to
defeat the empire.” But of course
“the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President
Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were
“pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress
who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan
“contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.” Such was Gingrich’s faith in
President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet
leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since
Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”

rush now wants to see the tax returns for Buffet’s secretary. love it. where will it end?

Anonymous

So do I. This woman has allowed herself to be used and now she’s gonna have to pay the penalty. As we are so often told, actions have consequences.

Anonymous

A new report just out from the Internal Revenue Service
reveals that 36 of President Obama’s executive office staff owe the
country $833,970 in back taxes. These people working for Mr. Fair Share
apparently haven’t paid any share, let alone their fair share.
Previous reports have shown how well-paid Obama’s White House staff is, with 457 aides pulling down more than $37 million last year. That’s up seven workers and nearly $4 million from the Bush administration’s last year.
Nearly one-third of Obama’s aides make more than $100,000 with 21 being paid the top White House salary of $172,200, each.
The IRS’ 2010 delinquent tax revelations come as part of a required
annual agency report on federal employees’ tax compliance. Turns out, an
awful lot of folks being paid by taxpayers are not paying their own
income taxes.

What is it with Dems and not paying taxes? They never stop bleating about the “rich” not paying their “fair” share while they are paying nothing at all?

For Dog’s sake Obama has a Treasury Secretary that couldn’t be bothered to pay his “fair” share. Or any share at all. And he was just one of many. Now it seems there are many more. What a bunch of damn hypocrites.

Oooo that horrible wealthy Mitt Romney and his tax returns. Well dang, at least he filed and paid. Millions.

Anonymous

What is it with Dems and not paying taxes? They never stop bleating about the “rich” not paying their “fair” share while they are paying nothing at all?

For Dog’s sake Obama has a Treasury Secretary that couldn’t be bothered to pay his “fair” share. Or any share at all. And he was just one of many. Now it seems there are many more. What a bunch of damn hypocrites.

Oooo that horrible wealthy Mitt Romney and his tax returns. Well dang, at least he filed and paid. Millions.

gaindy

The treasury secretary is a Republican though.

Anonymous

Perhaps in your alternative universe Turbo Tax Timmy is a Republican, but in ours he’s a Democrat.

Gingrich’s polling numbers have accelerated since Tuesday night’s debate. As of yesterday, he is 15pts + over Romney’s spiraling numbers.

Anonymous

A new poll shows Mitt Romney regaining his lead over rival Newt
Gingrich in Florida and better positioned to compete against President
Obama in that key state in the general election.
An InsiderAdvantage/Florida Times-Union poll released Wednesday night of likely GOP voters shows Romney with 40 percent support to Gingrich’s 32 percent.
The
poll mirrors other recent surveys which show that a Gingrich surge
fueled by his victory in last Saturday’s South Carolina GOP primary has
cooled.

Oh, okay…I’ll just turn my back on everything I believe in, and know, just to vote for the most psychotically “New World Order” candidate, who positively radiates evil, just to comply with the wishes of strangers, and pollsters.

Ten months prior to the election.

Anonymous

Newt in 1996: Let’s build a real Jurassic Park, have sex in space
Newt Gingrich said
Wednesday that there would be a permanent American base on the moon by
the end of his second term. This should not come as a surprise.

I don’t want Obama at the top of a gravity well where I live in the bottom of it. God only knows what kind of crap would come bombing down from the moon.

Guest

If you think Mitt Romney is honest and trustworthy, listen to any 30 seconds of his stump speech. Gingrich has major credibility issues but Romney is also dishonest like Obama, the phoniest of the phony that has lying and flip flopping down to an art form. His entire candidacy that is compelled with lies and fake-promises and glossing over with ‘honest’ and ‘decent’ what should be sickening hypocrisy ….Honest to God have you all lost your minds?

Guest

If you think Mitt Romney is honest and trustworthy, listen to any 30 seconds of his stump speech. Gingrich has major credibility issues but Romney is also dishonest like Obama, the phoniest of the phony that has lying and flip flopping down to an art form. His entire candidacy that is compelled with lies and fake-promises and glossing over with ‘honest’ and ‘decent’ what should be sickening hypocrisy ….Honest to God have you all lost your minds?

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MCA6QIPPR3EXRQRYL3MVYJSKLQ Joe

Don’t forget the absolutely mindless dribble presented with gravitas and presunptive authority such as SELF-DEPORTATION !!

For all of Newt’s disease and stench, he called it right…
an “Obama-style fantasy”

Jrterrier

too bad that newt himself agreed on the air with laura ingraham that self-deportation was a viable option.

in fact, right now it appears that a lot of people are leaving the USA on their own because work has dried up. and look at what happened in AL when their new immigration law came into effect. so it does work.

the converse, forcible deportations is not workable. the USA doesn’t have enough jails, immigration officers and money to deport 12 million people.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MCA6QIPPR3EXRQRYL3MVYJSKLQ Joe

I didn’t know he was for it before he was against that too! If only he could learn to control his political Turret’s Syndrome?

Just to be clear, I was not implying that I am for forced deportation. Sadly, Newt again tried to express a more realistic approach and was criticized as being for amnesty by Bacmann and Coulter…? He was being called the most liberal of all the candidates.

The republicans are killing their own, when they are not shooting themselves in the foot.

http://aconservativeteacher.blogspot.com aconservativeteacher

These are my favorite comments- personal insults, accusations, and repeating previous insults and accusations, all without a mention of an event, fact, or issue.

Oh, I’m sure that Romoney has changed his positions on issues, especially over the last several decades, but ‘is entire candidacy is compelled with lies’- really? Am I the only one that laughs at comments like these and hopes that whomever makes them don’t vote because they’re idiots?

Romney’s issues, records, stances, and positions are public record. Do a google search for ‘romney on the issues’ and you’ll see many sites that have pulled them together. You’d have to have lost your mind and be a sickening hypocrite to believe one word that ‘Guest’ said above without doing your own research.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MCA6QIPPR3EXRQRYL3MVYJSKLQ Joe

Our “Guest” may be guilty of using over-the-top rhetorical description to express his feelings but…

Romney has been all over the map thru the years on a host of the issues you can mine on google. This has been part of the common-knowledge narrative he has been saddled with since the last election. He talks like a politician – NOT a leader with conviction.

His “59 point plan” for the economy is genetic proof that he is nothing more than a technocrat, who relied on a steno-pool of other technocrats to create something that stroked their OWN sense of ego. Again, Newt is right, that it will do NOTHING more than manage the decline.

His “notion” of self-deportation is also the delusional theory of a technocrat in a world of the underground economy and the endless supply of government hand-outs… the local government office and back ally document forger are a much shorter journey than crossing the border.

Anonymous

What’s wrong with self-deportation? If people cannot find work they leave. Many are doing that in this economy. Forced deportation certainly isn’t the answer.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MCA6QIPPR3EXRQRYL3MVYJSKLQ Joe

I would like to see numbers on this. The idea that illegals are no longer coming here, or are actually going back across the border due to the economy, has become a somewhat frequent claim. I don’t buy it.

The opportunities in both illegal and underground economies are huge. Forged documents are an industry of their own and government hand-outs abound. You tell me where the motivation to go back across the border comes from?

When you take into consideration the murder rate and drug cartell problems, it only FURTHER benefits people to try to get into the U.S. at ANY COST.

No matter how you slice it you are better off to be poor in the U.S. then you are anywhere south of the border. Sorry, I don’t buy it. It is BS.

Anonymous

Don’t buy it. Your choice. Doesn’t make it BS just cause you disagree.

Poor is one thing, destitute because you have no income is another. Or maybe they’ll all “deport” themselves to sanctuary cities and those cesspools can sink under the weight.

Scottymac54

If not for those of us in “cesspools” on both coasts, our creativity and industry and the considerable tax burden we shoulder, the Midwest would not just be “the Rust Belt”, but a third world hellhole.

Anonymous

Sanctuary Cities, aka cesspools IMO are all over the country not just the coasts. But some evidently don’t know that and simply attack my part of the country for no good reason. It’s why I usually just collapse any comment from said person. And will make sure to do so from now on. Just wanted to clarify for the feebleminded.

Scottymac54

Forced deportation is necessary because illegal immigration and unsecured borders are this nation’s greatest national security challenge, and you don’t just let criminals decide when and how they “deport themselves”.

Anonymous

Our “Guest” may be guilty of using over-the-top rhetorical description to express his feelings but…

Ya think?

Simply spewing invective is fine? To use “guests” own words, “have you lost your mind?” Damn Joe, you are better than that.

Anonymous

Our “Guest” may be guilty of using over-the-top rhetorical description to express his feelings but…

Ya think?

Simply spewing invective is fine? To use “guests” own words, “have you lost your mind?” Damn Joe, you are better than that.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MCA6QIPPR3EXRQRYL3MVYJSKLQ Joe

Hey, you are mis-reading my dismissiveness! But thanks anyhow!

Anonymous

From reading your comments here, I was of the opinion that you were “better” than those who simply use ad hominem attacks. Since I think you are better than that I was a bit disappointed that you would attempt to excuse it.

If there are legitimate concerns or issues, fire away. But the kinds of b.s. that people like “guest” spew isn’t worth the time and effort we spend on them. JMO.

http://aconservativeteacher.blogspot.com aconservativeteacher

These are my favorite comments- personal insults, accusations, and repeating previous insults and accusations, all without a mention of an event, fact, or issue.

Oh, I’m sure that Romoney has changed his positions on issues, especially over the last several decades, but ‘is entire candidacy is compelled with lies’- really? Am I the only one that laughs at comments like these and hopes that whomever makes them don’t vote because they’re idiots?

Romney’s issues, records, stances, and positions are public record. Do a google search for ‘romney on the issues’ and you’ll see many sites that have pulled them together. You’d have to have lost your mind and be a sickening hypocrite to believe one word that ‘Guest’ said above without doing your own research.

Jrterrier

i’m sorry but you have made a wholesale conclusory statement without referencing a single dishonest thing. how can anyone accept your post or dispute it?

Anonymous

This type of attack is common. Ignore “guest” as it deserves. When smears like it’s comment are made they aren’t worthy of the attention they get.

Anonymous

This sort of thing, the vituperative comment with no substance, makes me wonder if Newt has been hired by Axelrod to make sure that Romney was well and truly smeared before even getting the nomination. That way all Obama has to do is point out all the things that “members of Romney’s own party” had said about him. He would be able to claim not to be smearing but just pointing out what others, supposedly political allies of Romney, had said about him. No need to mention if it’s at all true, just that it was said. That is a very Obama-style campaign tactic. Obama doesn’t want people really looking at his record, so he points out all the bad things about his opponent, no policy discussion, no list of actual accomplishments, just the same old Chicago style smears. It gets old after a while.

Anonymous

Unfortunately these kinds of ad hominem attacks are all too common from all sides these days.

The perpetrators know that if they repeat them often enough that some fools will simply accept them as the truth. Especially if they are directed at someone they don’t like.

Anonymous

Unfortunately these kinds of ad hominem attacks are all too common from all sides these days.

The perpetrators know if they repeat them often enough that some fools will simply accept them as the truth. Especially if they are directed at someone the fool doesn’t like.

Anonymous

That’s an interesting perspective, and is borne out somewhat by Newt’s own tactics and lack of consistency. Both Axelrod and Newt are lifelong professional political consultants, and Newt has certainly been known to take a buck from just about anyone who offers it to him.

Anonymous

That’s an interesting perspective, and is borne out somewhat by Newt’s own tactics and lack of consistency. Both Axelrod and Newt are lifelong professional political consultants, and Newt has certainly been known to take a buck from just about anyone who offers it to him.

Anonymous

That’s an interesting perspective, and is borne out somewhat by Newt’s own tactics and lack of consistency. Both Axelrod and Newt are lifelong professional political consultants, and Newt has certainly been known to take a buck from just about anyone who offers it to him.

Anonymous

That’s an interesting perspective, and is borne out somewhat by Newt’s own tactics and lack of consistency. Both Axelrod and Newt are lifelong professional political consultants, and Newt has certainly been known to take a buck from just about anyone who offers it to him.

http://thesibylspeaks.wordpress.com/ Anthony

If you think Newt Gingrich is “honest and trustworthy”, then you must be an Obama supporter…..

BUSTED!!!

Scottymac54

No, I have not. Gingrich, in my opinion, lives under satanic attack and manifests this in his words and actions.

Romney is only marginally better, but I question whether or not his skill set is optimal to lead the nation, in consideration of the struggles we are to face.

His choice of foreign policy advisors rules him out for serious consideration, IMHO.

But Gingrich has been off my card for months now, because he’s possibly the only candidate less qualified to be president, than Barack Obama.

That’s why I’ve chosen to support Dr. Paul, but you don’t see me ridiculing the choices others have made, or demonizing Romney.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Your comment could have been from an Obama supporter to a Hillary supporter.

That causes your preferred candidate to eventually be despised, rather than just rejected for the voter’s own personal reasons.

Look BEYOND the election. Regardless of who prevails, we still have to live together in what’s left of this country, afterward.

Time is not on Newt’s side. For some of us his character, or lack thereof was written in the way he treated his wives. But what will sink him is all the things the big bag of wind has said over the years.

You can discount Newt for is past all you want, but he clearly is tapping into something in the modern day Republican Party. That is undeniable. The same way that Ron Paul is. The establishment of the Republican Party can ignore that if they want, but that is reality. There is also a very large any-one-but-Romney vote in the Republican Party.

I am begining to think the Gingrich would have a better chance of beating Obama. Romney is really being hurt bad by him not paying any taxes and being a 1% Wall Streeter. Very few in this country will want to vote for someone in the “elite” who has a tough time relating to the middle class and in defending his wealth and record at Bain. This is the second time around for Romney and there is a reason he did not beat McCain the first time. People just don’t like Romney and that has just intensified.

Jrterrier

he tapped into one state’s anger by bashing the media. and sounding off on some familiar themes that play well in SC, as he would know being from GA. he got a bounce. let’s wait to see what happens.

PA

More than one state. Romney lost Iowa and only got 25% of the vote or exactly what he got in 2008 (that is 75% of Iowa Republicans voting against him). For owning a house in NH and spending the last 4 years campaigning his performance in NH was barely respectable. He got his ass handed to him in SC. And at best he is even with Gingrich in FL.

In national polls Romney is in freefall. Among registered Republicans Gingrich is at 31% and Romney is at 27%.

Apparently, “OBOTS FOR GINGRICH” is a thriving new “grass roots” movement…….

Get real, PA. You’re not fooling anyone

PA

Both Romney and Gingrich are terrible candidates. It is just not clear which woulld have the easier time in beating Obama. It is not so clear cut that it is automatically Romney.

Romney gets a few more independent votes, but significantly lowers the enthusiasm with the base.

Gingrich may not be as moderate, but he fires up the base, which will get out the vote and get them knocking on doors.

Which is better for the general election?

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MCA6QIPPR3EXRQRYL3MVYJSKLQ Joe

Newt is imploding, or more like the in the final stages of a super nova. He has risen like Lazarus twice, but he is going down a third and final time it appears.

Ann Coulter however is full if shit in trying to claim that Romney is somehow being “unjustly” perceived as the establishment candidate. He has been the “presumptive” nominee since the beginning!

I saw Ann Coulter on O’Reilly the other night and she was also imploding… dare I say she was HYSTERICAL in her nearly mindless defense of Romney.

I don’t buy into all the latest criticism of his wealth – good for him, but he is not up to the task that will be required of the next person who sits at the desk in the Oval Office.

chris

Am I the only person beginning to enjoy watching the reactions of some Politicians and some of the Press that are hysterical (literally) over the Newt Gingrich rise in the polls. It’s almost worth voting for the guy to keep this going! The dirt dumping hasn’t made much of a dent in his polls yet. I still don’t think that people are voting for Newt because of his ‘values’, so I still don’t get how the usual tactic of ‘drown them in smear attacks’ is going to work. Be careful. Newt can turn it around on the media/press/other politicians. He can cite numbers and he is not afraid to use them! How ironic that Newt is likely to become the poster boy for how to handle smear attacks.

hg

Even though I don’t particularly like the round man, Newt, I think he wolud be better than the hyperventilating Romney when it comes to beating Obama. But you are right. He can recall more stats, dates, and names than anyone I have ever heard. Romney reads Newt the gospel as he sees it and Newt will tell him who wrote it and the date in which it was written. :). The guy is a walkin talkin computer when it comes to debates. BUT he says so much I don’t know how much of it is true. Still I like him 100% more than the clown behind the desk in the oval office today.

Ptab01

This is perfect.

Here is what I had anticipated. . . W/ the primary being contested, the candidates are being fully vetted & everything is out there for full public acknowledgment. Unlike the election of the current POTUS – we will get the massive exposure of speaker Gingrich aka Chubbsywubsy ( yes I am dating myself w/ aLlittle Rascals reference )

I hope all things dug up on all persons running are exposed to the harsh light of scrutiny as to avoid electing yet another flawed POTUS. Granted the chance that 4th estate will do it’s due diligence on their man Obama is still highly in doubt.

But there is still a long time til November

Anonymous

Great post!

I, too, found myself in some kind of alternate universe when I suddenly found myself saying, “Go, Ann!” as she talked over pompous O’Reilly and insisted Gingrich would be a horrible choice as candidate. (Ann Coulter can be pretty outrageous in her comments, but on this topic, she is absolutely correct.)

Gingrich is a lying narcissist. He truly believes everything he says when he says it. And in everyday life when he is talking with people he relies on thier poor memories and on his “charming” ability to smooze to convince them what an upstanding guy he is.

The trouble is that Newt has forgotten that the technology nowadays is such that people can now see his lying face telling those lies no matter when he told them. It’s so hard to believe what is really true about Newt. I don’t think Newt knows himself. He just loves being in the limelight.

Thanks for letting many see them today. And good for John King, not letting the bully get away with it.

Anonymous

Wonder if Blitzer will confront Newt with his campaigns admission in tonight’s debate and, if so, whether Newt will blow.

Anonymous

As if those things aren’t bad enough, now Gingrich has run into trouble with Marco Rubio. In Florida. What a buffoon.

All the things LJ has been saying about Gingrich are highlighted in this incicdent.

Rubio rebuffs Gingrich
Newt Gingrich is as clueless as he is presumptuous. Yesterday, he trekked around Florida comparing himself to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Mitt Romney to the party-switching milquetoast Charlie Crist.

Rubio was having none of it and in a rare moment decide to intervene in the GOP presidential race. He put out a statement:

“Mitt Romney is no Charlie Crist. Romney is a conservative. And he was one of the first national Republican leaders to endorse me. He came to Florida, campaigned hard for me, and made a real difference in my race.” Boom.

Rubio’s nod certainly is welcomed by the Romney camp. Rubio continues to distinguish himself not only in the Senate but also in the party at large. His video response to the president’s State of the Union address confirms that, like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), he has become a prominent antagonist of the president.

Gingrich’s misstep — in essence, forcing Rubio to comment on the race, in which he pledged neutrality — is not unlike Gingrich’s suck-uppery regarding former U.N. ambassador John Bolton. Gingrich declared Bolton to be his choice for secretary of state; Bolton shortly thereafter robustly endorsed Romney, citing his “executive temperament.”

Gingrich apparently overestimates his appeal among named conservatives.

A prudent, well-organized candidate would reach out to figures in advance of his statements to make sure he’s not going to get embarrassed. But Gingrich is neither prudent nor well organized. Moreover, he believes his own spinand assumes others share his distorted view of himself and reality.

This website and the articles posted therein are contributed by authors who have no affiliation to the website or the website’s owner/moderator. All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only and has been contributed by the owners for no monetary compensation. The owner/moderator makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by accessing any website link(s) provided in a post. As such, the owner/moderator will not be liable for any errors or omissions contained in the information set forth in an authored post nor for the availability of said information. The owner/moderator will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages arising from any information set forth in any author’s post(s) and will not indemnify the authors for any purpose arising from or related to the author’s post. By posting an article on this blog, the author, and the author alone, expressly assumes any liability related to the post. The owner/moderator does not share personal information with third-parties nor does the owner store information collected about your visit for use other than to analyze content performance. The owner/moderator is not responsible for the republishing of the content contained on this blog on other websites or media without permission. The owner/moderator of the blog reserves the right to edit or delete any comments submitted to this blog without notice due to (a) comments deemed to be spam or questionable spam; (b) comments including profanity; (c) comments containing language or concepts that could be deemed offensive; or (d) comments that attack a person or their character. The decision to remove any comments that violate the terms and conditions herein are made at the sole discretion of the owner/moderator. The policies, terms and conditions herein are subject to change at any time and without prior notice.

We defray costs with sales and donations. Do you shop at Amazon? Click any ad here, make any purchase, and we get a percentage. Thanks!

ABOUT US

Tired of spin? Larry Johnson offers no quarter on issues of your security.